Monday, April 18, 2016

The decline of America is not an accident

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a "consciousness-raising-group," a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

"Why are we here today?" she asked."To make revolution," they answered."What kind of revolution?" she replied."The Cultural Revolution," they chanted.“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?" she demanded."By destroying the American family!" they answered."How do we destroy the family?" she came back."By destroying the American Patriarch," they cried exuberantly."And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied."By taking away his power!""How do we do that?""By destroying monogamy!" they shouted."How can we destroy monogamy?"

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

52 comments:

It's also a triumph of the Wiccan approach to morality: "an it harm none, do what you will." That seems to be the default model for most people today.

The problem is that we have such a narrow definition of harm. From the perspective of the revolutionaries, anything "consenting adults" do can't result in any harm. Never mind the broken families, etc.

I think part of the mission to defeat these people is to re-establish a sense of morality that goes beyond "I can do whatever I want so long as I'm not bothering you."

Been there, done that. Typical Wiccan "family" is a mess. And the Wiccan Rede has the same issues with subjectivity as any roll-your-own morality. I realized that this subjetivity fit well enough the definition of Original Sin, and I was "outta there". I gotta laugh at witchy-poos talking about "the ways of the ancestors", as long as those ancestors didn't live in the last millennium or two.

But notice that nobody argues for the Patriarchy? "Poor little girls, we'll let them have their slogans." That's because men who can't see farther than the ends of their dicks see benefit in female "liberation".

Sure, there needs to be a victim, but I think part of the problem may be that we have set too high bar for establishing that someone is harmed. For example, who is harmed when two single adults have sex, or when a man hires a prostitute, or when two men have sex? The kind of "revolution" implied in the original post is helped when we say these are all victimless crimes. I think we need a way to show that they're not.

1. Embrace monogamy 2. Support and sustain power of the American Patriarch 3. Embrace the role of the American Patriarch 4. Rebuild the family 5. Restore the culture

Realistically, you will only ever succeed at this by essentially liquidating just about the entire current female popukation of the U.S. and start over by replacing them with immigrants from those parts of the globe still mostly uncorrupted by modernism/feminism. American women, even those who claim to be anti-feminist and "traditionalist", will resist the re-establishment of Patriarchy with ever fiber of their being. Three-plus generations of subtle indoctrination have corrupted almost ALL American women beyond reddmption.

"And the Wiccan Rede has the same issues with subjectivity as any roll-your-own morality."

It's actually not any different from God's law. The problem is, they don't recognize that the various sexual sins which violate God's law DO harm whoever partake in them. They may make the partakers feel good for a little bit, but they do damage, just like drugs.

A tricky project of the alt-right is acknowledging the truths in the game blogs without sinking into degeneracy as well at the truths of MGTOW without falling into grass eating despair. It does not help that the inter-group dynamics between those two groups are amplified by the winner-take-all nature of male sexual competition that exists in primitive and primitivizing societies: the game guys and alphas dismiss the mgtows a bunch of losers and the mgtow guys dismiss the game guys as idiots and chads.

and start over by replacing them with immigrants from those parts of the globe still mostly uncorrupted by modernism/feminism.

Given the genetic stocks available, I guess the white guys dating asian girls are making the best of the situation. I've seen some bad outcomes though.

How many times have we been told here not to listen to what women say?

It has nothing to do with what women say, but everything to do with what they DO. What they DO is resist, with feral kicking and screaming, any attempts to curb their basest impulses and reckless behavior and bring them back under the civilizing (and civilization-sustaining) constraints of Patriarchy.

Any zoologist who has any real-world experience with feral animals will tell you that, beyond a certain age, any attempt to tame such an animal is a futile fool's errand. The best you can do is confine them in an environment where you can mitigate or eliminate any harm they might do to other animals, humans, or themselves. Thus it is with American women.

Even if it were possible to "contain" the problem, there is absolutely ZE-RO political will to do so and a great deal of hostility to the idea (and by no means just from women).

Realistically, you will only ever succeed at this by essentially liquidating just about the entire current female popukation of the U.S. and start over by

That's not necessary. Get rid of all the garbage that encourages these practices and you will get rid of most of the problem.

1. Start with ending all alimony and child support.

Getting rid of alimony and defaulting child custody to the parent that pays will dramatically lower the rate of frivolous divorce. It will also encourage women to be particular about who they give out their sexuality to. Right now they pursue the badboys in their youth and then bed the betas near their “sell by” date.

The problem is that by the time they get around to marrying some weak nerd, they are no longer capable of forming a bond with him. Then they divorce and walk away with half his hard earned assets. That has to stop.

Naturally any woman reading this will be outraged, because she would never ever ever be frivolous in divorce, why just last week her husband did X,Y, Z, isn't he a bad man and don't you agree I should divorce? blah blah. Unless you are paying me 100$ an hour to listen, then I don't give a shit.

2. Next, kill welfare completely.

Just get rid of it, at least on the federal level. Those States that want welfare can deal with the influx of degenerates and scavengers, the rest will have it good. If the faggot communists in the State of New York wants us all to have welfare so badly, they can @#$@#ing pay for it themselves.

Welfare is used as a backup plan by women in all poor communities. Removing the consequence of shitty choices by women is why women continue making shitty choices.

Bring back the consequence of shitty choices.

3. End all Federal subsidies and any special privileges to the university system.

All universities must all be treated exactly the same as any private corporation offering a service, nothing more. And on the same token, make it possible for all students to get out of their student loan debt by declaring bankruptcy. I'm not knowledgable on this topic, so forgive me if I get it wrong, but I've been told that student loan debt cannot be escaped. Well, that only encourages banks to give out bad loans, which encourages the university system to continue scamming students into taking courses they shouldn't or don't need. Enough. End that practice now. The University is not holy ground, it is a business providing a service, treat it like any other. I can sympathize with those that believe the University to have a sacred aspect, but if it did, that's long over.

This is a bit more subtle then the above. Ending Federal subsidies and bringing consequence to the university system will not directly affect the choices women make, but it will affect the gay filth that the universities spew out.

Right now the universities can say and do anything, they have their little racket going because there are zero consequences for it. The students can always get loans, the students are also morons, and so they will take those loans putting themselves in permanent debt to take worthless courses. All these students coming in gives the illusion of value, and so the universities can ask for both public and private donations on behalf of all the people they are scamming. And because no value is necessary to be given, a great deal of evil garbage is taught instead. Other unsavory and malicious groups take advantage of this both to do unethical research and to propagandize.

End it.

4 . from this point you can start ending the rest of the socialist policies. In essence anything that can be done by the State should not be done on the Federal level. If it can be done by the County it should not be done by the State. If it can be done by the Town it should not be done by the County. And if a man with a shotgun can do it, than leave him the fuck alone.

One in which they have to put their money where their mouths are and put their arses on the line? One in which they put their comfy middle class lifestyles at risk? One where they have to walk the talk? One that might involve weapons as well as words?

The great irony of all this is that the old "patriarchy" benefited women a lot more than the current system. The current setup allows women to play games, yes, but the day the youngest kid turns 18, the gravy train comes to a complete stop.

As for reform, I think you have to put together a coalition of men and married women. Pitch it as an effort to bring the irresponsible (men and women alike) under control. In order to save resources the responsible need for their own families.

We should embrace sexual responsibility, rather than monogamy narrowly. What I mean is let a man have as many women as he can attract so long as he is absolutely willing to keep them and support them (with the children she bears him). Let him establish himself independently, and bring those women into his life and household. This directs the natural urge of many men to have a variety of women toward personal productivity and improvement, without resorting to being sexually immoral.

Another benefit: The disciples of feminism and “progressivism” over the last 150 years or so have been drawn, in large part, from women who are not in families. If a good number of these women marry and help raise (large) families, it will drain the swamp that breeds feminism.

Finally, don’t worry about state-recognized marriage. What would a man gain from that in this day and age? Just make your vows and be faithful to them. And if she leaves, you’re still better off than if you had a state-recognized marriage.

First, monogamy ensures that every man has an opportunity to marry. It's the only stable system - otherwise, you have the men who have no women colluding to kill off the one man who has ALL the women. Even cultures that have polygamy reserve it for the very upper crust - and frequently limit it even then.

Second, we're dealing with a welfare state. Which means that an unscrupulous woman can go out, get pregnant, and start sucking welfare dollars out of the pockets of men who got nothing at all...not even a kind word.

(1) The limiting principles here are that the man has to be able to maintain said women, and said women will have to want to be with the man. A woman might be willing to be one of a handful with a good man, but not likely one of a thousand, unless perhaps the man is on par with King Solomon.

(2) I don't follow your argument about the welfare state. As things are now, an unscrupulous woman can already do all the things you said, so I don't see how informal polygamy makes things worse. Longer term, though, the welfare state would be obviated. A man with more wealth has more kids, and distributes his inheritance among more heirs. So redistribution of wealth is handled in a just way rather than an unjust way.

The two changes that enable the destruction was contraception (remember Griswold v. Connecticut?) - later Abortion - and "No-Fault" divorce.

No one, especially the churches, are for ending either. The Catholic Church has them as actual doctrine, but is still to liberal to push it beyond wanting to stop abortion. Almost every other denomination accepts them at a civil level, Mormons the least because within their church they expect eternal marriage (sealing) and children are considered a big blessing. The feminized churches accept career women.Also remember the very Protestant US congress passed the Comstock laws banning interstate traffic in pornography, contraceptives, and abortion drugs in the late 1800s.

The problem is not so much that women are liberated, but men are even more so. Raising a family and supporting a wife is a lot harder (even if we fix trade so there will be blue-collar jobs). Sex leading to children? Horrors! Another mouth to feed is the price of fun.

I also need to emphasize divorce. Why is a marriage easier to get out of than student debt? It used to be required to show abandonment, adultery, or abuse, and then things like alimony could apply.

We've turned marriage from a permanent and fruitful Cathedral to a barren temporary tent.

I'm curious what they hoped to gain from all that, except possibly to ensure others were as miserable as they themselves. For a lot of people that is enough. But it reminds me of Captain Barbossa's line from the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" (and the only worthwhile one): "I'm curious... after killing me what is it you're planning on doing next?"

"Realistically, you will only ever succeed at this by essentially liquidating just about the entire current female population of the U.S."

We do nothing until the EBT cards stop working. Then, as many as we can afford, we adopt young girls from starving single mothers, and raise them to be good wives. We'll then have plenty of chaste young women to marry off to each other, and to attract quality young men to our movement.

That's pretty much how Christianity took over ancient Rome, as the old pagan religion orgied and contracepted itself out of existence.

None of that worked as a bulwark against the progressive agenda; why would it work to reverse it?

Because before they took over, progs pulled on people's heartstrings, and seemed cool and rebellious to a lot of the dumber sort. When they've run their course, no prog will be looked at as anything other than a passé perv.

IOW, the best way to discredit progs is to let them try to run things for a while.

"1.Embrace monogamy2.Support and sustain power of the American Patriarch3.Embrace the role of the American Patriarch4.Rebuild the family5.Restore the culture"

All those are Biblically supported goals, thus do-able.

The only borderline is monogamy, because of so much polygamy in the OT, and also Isaiah 4, in which large numbers of women are approaching males and forgoing any monetary or material boon, pleading only to have their 'shame' or 'reproach' taken away. This points to a near-future culture that already has abandoned present/matriarchal arrangements, for either a Patriarchal society, or for Christ's own established rulership . . . which will not merely be a Patriarchy, but THE KINGDOM of the FATHER on Earth. Once this Kingdom is established, humans and Earth never again will revert to either overt or functional matriarchy. Jeshua's Kingdom will last forever, and in this strange hour, we are blessed by God with the unique opportunity and privilege of helping construct that Kingdom, and even building Christ's own Temple and dwelling-place. Not too shaggy fer slackers!

Monogamy presents the most conservative option following our failed-experimental period, and thus the best choice for transitional patriarchy. This provides a healthy launching-pad for whatever the Lord has in mind thereafter.

Isaiah rambles in future vision about seven women taking hold of one man, suggesting the mucho-masculine social customs of the future. That future is now near, or even already arrived, because subsequently, in verse 2, Isaiah praises the 'beautiful and glorious branch of Yahweh'. This branch can only be Christ himself, enthroned and ruling during the Millennium/Father's Kingdom, or allusion to the transitional phase, in which the high-priest, Joshua, interim until the King, is temporarily impeded by Satan, before later being crowned and accepted into office.

The first items on your list must be gratitude towards Father, and restoration of fatherhood, as Christ commanded at the close of the OT. Healing the bond between fathers and their kids is priority one; this re-bonds the family unit, because there can be NO real family unit without dad present and in-charge. With dads again established in families, diverse benefits ripple-through the entire culture. World.

Thus, along with 'supporting the power and role of the American Patriarch' you must have presumptive paternal custody, and an accompanying clean-out of the dens and sewers of the matriarchate. Heck, if I walked you guys through a typical 'Family Law Firm' in any American city, you'd be shellshocked (and hopeless) by the end of day one. There's a vast entrenched pseudo-elite all through government, private sector, schools, and even the churches. Pretending legalisms and goodness, instead they are vampiric and predatory, and they have no intention of allowing an American Patriarchate to form or wield influence. Because they know they'd be outta jobs pronto. Or outta luck completely.

So, presumptive paternal custody goes along with mass substantive legal and social changes. American Patriarch, monogamy, traditional family regenerated, all good things, worth asking God for and worth working towards. And that's the final piece, praying to Father and Jeshua for these restorations.

Do the first things that God asked of us; he knew intimately the times we'd live in. And then hey if you want to build The Wall, whatever. Might release a little angst. But Satan is not afraid of a wall between Mexico and America. Fatherhood, otoh, scares him shitless.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to this issue, but it seems pretty obvious to me (from a 70 year perspective), that men and women are simply adapting their expressions of their biological imperatives to the current social environment. The greatest factor affecting this seems to me to be the welfare state. Feminism is rational in a welfare state where women are not trapped in the role of mother. Good luck trying to change genetically coded behavior.

Vice, as Spooner defined it, is a self-harming action taken in (honest) expectation of happiness.

From homosexuality to Feminism's follies, those who embrace non-traditional systems are almost uniformly miserable. A woman who puts career first, childbearing/raising low and wifely obligations last; a man who turns the tables on female manipulation by eschewing marriage in favor of Gaming that mass-woman's innate vices; a woman who tries to act like (a fictional) man by pursing occupations for which she's naturally ill-suited and behaves like a sexual hedonist...

Each of these looks like an alcoholic bellying up to the bar for another drink. The immediate pleasure (from whatever source, including smug self-satisfaction) inevitably gives way in the long run to MISERY (and miserly does love company, thank you Hollywood.)

Happiness Path is found by reasoning your way to insights about actions and their long-term consequences. Yes, we have a high-time-preference society. So what? We can't change the actions of the masses...that's why they are called the masses. Most people are mindless drones.

I prefer to be Nock's Remnant, teaching my sons (and they, my grandchildren) not just WHAT to do by WHY to do it. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that traditional roles and forms actually ARE the way to live (which should be self-evident as they've stood the test of time.)

Feminism is an immediate response to a set of perverse incentives. Women who join the herd in this regard are almost all extremely unhappy. The prevalence of antidepressants is a huge datum in this insight.

Living life well depends on NOT yielding to the temptation to do whatever the hell others are doing. Alcoholics don't line up even if the drinks are free, not if they want to be happy.

Our times are saturated with ways for people to destroy themselves. Free porn, sexual promiscuity enabled by prevention of conception, widespread availability of drugs and alcohol and a million and one ways to dissipate the finite minutes one is given are present like never before in history.

This makes the men and women who conquer their impulses to indulge in this all the more worthy. Those who eschew modern life's innumerable vices are the best of the best, more proven "under fire" than any soldier because today's endless temptations don't even LOOK dangerous.

F everyone else. The masses always insist on marching to hell in a handbasket. Choose a different path. It. Isn't. Rocket. Science.

​We can complain about the welfare state decoupling people from their families economically, and we can complain about contraceptives leading to promiscuity and the breakdown of the family in that direction, but frankly, if that is our focus, then all we are going to be able to do is complain. Clearly, it is not realistically within our power to shut off the EBT cards, or to prevent access to contraception. Instead, I propose that we focus on what is within our power, and that is to build up our own families, and let's do that with gusto.

A man with one wife can father a handful of children. A successful man with two or three wives can father quite a few more. Additionally, the network of familial relationships that he will have with the families of his wives will help his influence. And moreso, the loyalty he will have from his own children, and that his own children will have toward each other, will increase their influence in the world as a family. And this effect will compound generationally. By fostering loyalty in this way, you can resist the SJW State on a systemic level.I also want to answer the common argument that polygamy is an unstable system, with too few women to go around. In a healthy, growing society, the population will be increasing up to about 4% annually. Assuming an average age gap eventually of 7 years between husband and wife, leaving enough time for the man to get himself established, we're talking about 32% more women than men. Polygamy is a very stable system, as systems that correspond with nature tend to be. But the men must be held to the requirement to support their wives and children, so long as they remain loyal to them.

As it is, we have hedonistic men taking their natural urge for sex with multiple women, and turning to dissipation through sexual immorality, pumping and dumping. Why not take that natural urge, and instead of squelching it in unnatural restraint, and instead of dissipating it through immorality, direct it toward the establishment of large families and toward their own personal improvement and productivity?

Monagamy needn't be part of restoring America, and may in fact be a harder way to go.

The church lost the culture war. You're just preaching more of the same loosing strategy (in point #1). Instead we should embrace and extend: Polygyny offers a sanctified way for men to fulfill their God given urges to spread their seed as widely and variously as possible. Except instead of a series of fruitless one night stands with damaged women you get dedicated, virginal, life-long helpers who will serve you and bear your children; the kind of women everyone wants but says no longer exist [assuming we game Dads do our job raising them].

Churchianities infatuation with monagamy goes hand in hand with its women worship; both concepts largely received from the Greco-Roman world, not the Hebrew. Neither the NT nor OT require monagamy nor was all of Europe monagamous.

pnoble's note about population growth rates is interesting but there is a greater point. The men who would be 'denied' wives by polygyny don't have wives now either. Women would rather do a series of one night stands and then live alone with cats than marry them. So there is no net negative from that.

Yes, there may be a perceived increase in difficulty acquiring wives, but this will mostly be blame shifting. But to the contrary, joining the American Patriarchal sects would open up access to the kind of women currently unavailable.

This no net effect (with cat ladies and grass eaters) is the way things will be until the economic/legal system changes such that women depend on marriage for support. So polygyny is no net loss. But it is a net gain because every extra wife popping out more than 2 kids, who are then raised in the new American Patriarch reality, gets us that much closer to the goal.

"How do we defeat them?1.Embrace monogamy2.Support and sustain power of the American Patriarch3.Embrace the role of the American Patriarch4.Rebuild the family5.Restore the culture"

I agree with these points Mr.VD, but where's Christ in all this? I don't see God as #1? Where's GOD in all this?

Please don't get me wrong and I'm not meaning at all to be contentious or argumentative but doesn't all this mean that for those who are Christians should return back TO HIM and HIS WORD (in King James Version Holy Bible)and to live By His Rules?

Out in the natural, the battle for "western civilization" is lost; if it was anything worth saving... If we TURN TO GOD in PRAYER and FASTING and LIVE and DO by His Word individually and collectively as we can, we can have a POSITIVE IMPACT on the world around us.

It starts out in our own little geographical pockets of neighborhoods, communities, towns and cities.

Right now, I live in Houston, Texas. I am a traveling Christian street-preacher with a goal (as the Lord leads) to someday be a pastor of a church. I minister and preach already and I've already seen the things God does and can do if I grow more in His Faith.

I like many of your articles and information as you are very knowledgeable and compassionate I perceive; though you don't seem to talk about "God" as much as I WOULD LIKE YOU TO I'd say.

Other than that, a very solid post. And absolutely correct, accurate points of focus to SHIFT things around. But even so, without His Power, man working by himself could not pull off a Change as would be the Ideal in the intent of this post.

Feminism had women create an army of millions to push the female imperative.The red pill has men creating a million armies of one to push the male imperative.

Women agitated, shamed and manipulated to get their way. But it was the men who enacted the changes the feminists wanted. Because, in the final analysis it is men, not women, who act on the world.

Now it is the men who are the engine of change. In the most powerful way possible - by disengaging, by no longer 'acting' upon the world.

This does not mean MGTOW, mostly it is a scaling down of the traditional expectations placed on a man; every man who chooses cohabitaion instead of marriage, every man who takes a smaller job in exchange for more free time, every man who lives with less in exchange for little or no debt, every man who learns how to fix and repair things instead of buying new, every man who eschews a promotion in return for a more balanced life, every man who retires early (and I have noticed these last two trending in my, older, cohort of men) - they all gain from this, at a personal level; more time, more money, more freedom, less debt, less stress, fewer obligations. NONE of these things involve voting, legislation, permission or marching in the streets. None of these things use the mechanisms of democracy, the courts or the media to effect change. And just about all of them teach masculine virtues.

As long as Big Daddy Government can act as the 'Alpha of Last Resort' laws will never be passed to promote patriarchy and men will never vote as a 'bloc' for men's best interest. Why? Because men don't care as much as women about these things. Because men ALWAYS have another option that women don't have.

Walking away.

When women turn against men, men's first instinct is not to go to Big Daddy Government and plead for their rights - this is the way of women. Men's tendency is to flip the bird and move on. Men can live very well on very little. Women, not so much.

Women HAVE to go begging to BDG because they don't have another option in the way men do. And as more men leave the plantation, BDG becomes ever more impoverished.

This matters. The feminist's demands on BDG have become so insane that governments NEED just about ALL men to be hyper-productive, just to meet current needs. And this is why just a few percentage of men at the margin dis-engaging and opting to low productivity lives matters so much. BDG funding is on a knife edge. The feminists know that funding for female empowerment will be dropped in a heartbeat when those debts comes due, and that day draws ever nearer with every man that walks away.

Big Daddy Government is just as subject to hypergamy as the lowliest man. And as men's disengagement continues to stave it of the funds it needs to support female entitlements, women will abandon it just as quickly. It does no harm to instruct our sons in masculine virtues and to have them take the red pill, nor to agitate for change. But make no mistake, the final stake through feminism's heart will be driven by women, not men. And it's death will be all the more assured for it.

​@tz said: "correction - a man can SIRE many children, he can only father those of one wife.

Generally, to ask a Father to raise the children of many wives is to ask the God of the bible to support or enlighten the worshipers of Baal, Molech, Astheroth, and Quetzalcoatl."

That is not how the picture of God as husband is presented in Scripture. He is described as being husband to the nation of Israel (or to both the kingdoms of Israel and of Judah in Ezekiel and Jeremiah). The nations who offer themselves to foreign gods instead of reserving themselves for their true husband are likened to adulteresses. The foreign gods are pictured as male lovers to whom the unfaithful wives offer themselves. The children of his wives (the people of those kingdoms) are, or ought to be, his own children.

In your statement, you seem to make the foreign gods to be wives, and the followers of those gods to be the children of those wives. That doesn't at all match the way spiritual faithfulness and spiritual adultery are represented in the Bible. So to argue against the ability of a man to be faithful to his wives and to his children by those wives based on that mixed-up analogy is vain.

@adamalanproverbs: Good observation about there being no net loss. Women are, and ought to be, reluctant to marry down. They should not want to place themselves under those whom they would consider, rightly or wrongly, their inferiors. (Let us leave aside for now whether those women evaluate themselves rightly. If they'd rather stay single than to marry those men, then it's moot anyway.)

"Yes, there may be a perceived increase in difficulty acquiring wives, but this will mostly be blame shifting. But to the contrary, joining the American Patriarchal sects would open up access to the kind of women currently unavailable."

Correct. This paradigm would be self-perpetuating once it achieves critical mass.

Anyway, if patriarchy (and by extension nationalism) is the idea, why not go all in, and diminish the pool from which the feminists draw new recruits at the same time? Probably after the first generation, but certainly after the second, decentralized patriarchy is established as the organizing princple of society, and feminism is completely done as a political force.

Your argument in favour of polygyny would be right, were it not BS that real life experience has refuted repeatedly. You cite the Bible however according to the very scriptures you try to cite, Polgygamy was condoned, not sanctified due to the high male mortality in battle. U

Unless you plan to use genetic engineering to change the facts on the ground (get more female than male babes on a simple ratios and I would be on board with that)or some other method, the result will be the middle East (eternal conflict, political instability, condoned pederasty and domestic violence)as well as progressive inbreeding, the bane of that region. How is that? Very simple, you claim that polygamy is a more efficient way of reproduction. However a closer examination disproves such a premise. Biblical examples of men whose wives/concubines and children are mentioned should be enough to think about it:

I guess you get my drift. Polygamy is really efficient spreading the DNA of the man, however is no way to repopulate a country faster than traditional monogamy. However it's funny I grant you that. It was sustainable in Israel and the Middle East only because there was a very high male mortality. Moreover, under this practice the country becomes genetically less diverse and more prone to inbreeding due to the scarcity of male bloodlines. Let alone more clannish and prone to violence against anyone outside their group. This is good on certain circumstances but for nation building that requires a level of trust in strangers (people that are not related to you in any way), it becomes an uphill battle http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI27Ak03.html.

You stated that the way things are now many men are going childless, that is partially correct, partly, however under a revived polygamy, millions would incel, since most women (if not all) would rather be wife N°100000 of a Brad Pitt-like billionaire than the sole wife to John the plumber, no matter how alpha he is. I guess in such case, frequent wars and condoned war brides are your cards...

​"Polgygamy was condoned, not sanctified due to the high male mortality in battle." To start with, it was at least not prohibited, so let's at the very least not be in the business of condemning those whom Scripture does not. Secondly, you assert that it was condoned due to high male mortality in battle. Truly polygamy would be helpful in a situation of high male mortality, but it's an overreach to say that that was *the* reason it was condoned. You also assert that it was not sanctified (implying that monogamy, by contrast, was). I don't see that assertion supported anywhere in Scripture, except perhaps some weak support from the requirements set for overseers and deacons, but even if we should grant that, let's still observe that polygamy was not condemned.

"Polygamy ... is no way to repopulate a country faster than traditional monogamy." One thing you're missing in your birth rate per woman is that all the wives you're counting were married. Many women now are not married who would be. And those who do marry, marry later than they would, and therefore have a reduced span of childbearing. Now of course, a birth rate of 1.12 per woman is still far too low, but we don't know what the deal was with Rehoboam, but having 78 wives is not typical in any population that practices polygamy. Besides, regarding societies that do practice it, it should be obvious that whatever problems the muslims have, a low birth rate is not one of them.

You also say that societies with polygamy are more clannish. Our society now tends to be too isolated and individualistic, in my opinion. People are lonely and disconnected, and the organization that does take place tends to replace the family connections. You say that this "clannishness" is a problem for nation-building, but what does "nation" even mean without family connections? You might be able to build a state more easily, with a lot of individual, interchangeable worker drones to support it, but we already have that. That state can and does run roughshod over unorganized individuals, in order to implement its own humanistic ideologies. So for what it's worth, "clannishness" is a feature, not a bug.

In any case, what we have now is a society where men effectively pass women among one another indirectly (being players), and then complain that there are no good women, and women give themselves to men easily (the carousel) and complain that they can't find a good man. And this is a self-perpetuating system, because no one man on his own can make the other men not be players, so he takes what he can get among defiled women, and defiles them himself. And no one good woman on her own can make the other women be chaste, so she gives herself easily to compete for men. If the practice of polygamy can be introduced, it counters this systemically. First, it tends to force the men to be serious about finding a wife if there are fewer easy/desperate women available. Men willing to establish themselves will be able to obtain a wife, but those who are not will be left behind. Secondly, it tends toward women marrying younger, which leaves less opportunity for carousel-riding, but more importantly, it provides a greater hope of marriage and family for those younger women, which keeps them from despairing and giving themselves up to immorality.

But the real beauty of it is that none of this really requires anyone's approval. Let those who are willing and able to take multiple women do so, and let those who will not, not do so. And if it turns out that no women are willing to be co-wives, then of course it won't work. But let no one think it immoral to do, so long as he remains faithful to each woman he takes.

I never said polygamy was sinful or immoral so stop your strawmen arguments. However it's true that when the bible speaks of the sainthood of Marriage it speaks about the union of man and woman who become one flesh. Nowhere in the bible does it speaks of the unions between one man and many women, let alone viceversa. Even in analogies, Jesus Christ calls the Church the Bride, not brides...

But my point still stands, Polygamy at society level is only sustainable if there is a surplus of women or a dearth of men either by death or something else. Polygamy if you read what the bible says about it is basically welfare for females, something extraordinaire in a time where the widow was one of the most defenseless members of society. Therefore many a woman wanted to avoid this fate and would rather become wife number two. Of course there were cases when the women flocked to powerful and/or rich and handsome men to become wives or concubines.

Regarding clannishness, if you think individualism is a problem, just look to the other side of the coin http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars where tribalism (extreme clannishness due to endogamy that stems from widespread polygamy) doesn't even let form a strong and cohesive army, let alone build their nations, since they are unable trust each other (extreme low trust society) even in life/death situation if the other happens to belong to another clan (even when they might share the same grandpa).

"I never said polygamy was sinful or immoral so stop your strawmen arguments." When I said we should not be in the business of condemning those whom Scripture does not, I knew that you had not said it was sinful. I'm sure many readers of this site would condemn those who would practice polygamy, and our wider society clearly does condemn them. My argument was to them, that if it is condoned, as you said, then it is condoned and not condemned, and that we should not condemn those whom God condones.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "sainthood of Marriage", but in all marriages, it is the union of one man and one woman. However, that one-flesh union can happen between the man and his first wife, the man and his second wife, and so on. For instance, David was married to Abigail, and David was married to Ahinoam. Those are two separate marriages and two separate one-flesh unions, and those unions are spoken of frequently throughout Scripture. And speaking of analogies, let us remember that in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, God is referred to as the husband of two women: Israel and Judah.

An age gap between men and women combined with a more-than-replacement birthrate is enough on its own to support some level of polygamy. As far as sustainability, age gap, birthrate, and incidence of polygamy all counterbalance each other. So for instance, as the birthrate increases, a higher level of polygamy is sustainable longer term, assuming a constant age gap. Or if the incidence of polygamy increases beyond what the birthrate will itself counteract, the age gap will increase. All of these things, and many others to be sure, meet in equilibrium to stabilize the system, as in the marketplace.

I don't dispute that polygamy functions as a form of welfare for females, and I would go further and say that this is a far better form of welfare than what we have now. If they should be provided for (and they should) it should be in families and not with government checks. But you say that this is link between polygamy and welfare is shown in the Bible, so I want to ask where you find this.

"…tribalism…doesn't even let form a strong and cohesive army, let alone build their nations, since they are unable trust each other (extreme low trust society) even in life/death situation if the other happens to belong to another clan (even when they might share the same grandpa)."

Interesting argument. I can see the polygamy -> clannishness -> tribalism sequence, but I am skeptical that tribalism itself leads to a low-trust society. I'd be interested to learn more about the dynamics of loyalty and trust in tribal societies. My suspicion is that trust is strongest at a closer level and weaker the further out you go, which seems natural. I also suspect that there are other cultural issues that factor in strongly, including religion.

"Our society is sinking but polygamy is not the solution."

All of the institutions of society--corporations, civic organizations, and especially the state itself--have scaled have scaled up with population growth and technology, except for the family. And now the state is trying to become the primary organizing principle, taking the place of others, such as family, or making others functionally agents of the state (corporations being forced to implement social policy, for example). Strong extended family loyalty (clannishness, and maybe even tribalism) are a necessary organizational counterbalance to the SJW State. And toward that end, polygamy should be encouraged, or at least not actively discouraged as it is now.

Feel the need to have armored stormtroopers break into folks' houses with actual true assault rifles, shoot their pets, burn their kids, and drag them at gunpoint into a cage notorious for rape? Pick up your own gun and do it yourself, coward!